Help me decide - lens purchase/body & lens sale

[cfimages]

Hi,

 

To start with, here's my current kit.

Bodies - 20D, Elan 7e (EOS30), Rebel 2K (EOS300)

Lenses - 50mm f1.8, 18-55EF-S, 28-135 IS USM, 75-300, Tokina 20-35mm

f3.5/4.5

 

I use the 20D with 28-135mm for about 90% of my images.

 

Either in late 2005 or early 2006, I'll be adding the 70-200f4L to

this. But right now, I'm in the market for something wider. I was

pretty much decided upon the 17-40f4L, which would give me the lens

kit of 17-40, 50mm, and in 6 months, the 70-200f4.

 

But recently, I read about the new Tokina 12-24f4, and I'm intrigued

by the possibilities this may bring.

 

So now I can't decide whther to go for the Tokina, or the 17-40L.

 

I am planning on selling the Rebel 2K and a lens or two (not to pay

for new stuff, simply becasue they're not being used.

 

My main options that I see now are -

 

1)Buy the 17-40f4L now, the 70-200f4L in 6 months, use the 50mm to

fill the gap. Sell the Rebel2K with the Tokina 20-35mm, and my

75-300m. And probably the 28-135 (although it's my workhorse and I

love it) as well.

 

2)Buy the Tokina 12-24f4, pair it with the 28-135mm that I already

have as well as the 50mm, and the future 70-200f4L. Sell the Rebel,

the Tokina 20-35, and the Canon 75-300mm.

 

Your suggestions would be appreciated. But note - I won't buy Sigma

due to potential incompatability problems. I know they can exist with

any 3rd party lens, but my Tokina 20-35mm went out of production

before the 20D went into production, and yet it works perfectly on the

20D.

 

Also the 16-35L, and the 10-22EF-S are not lenses that I'm

considering. The former due to price, the latter due to a mixture of

price and I don't want to lock myself into EF-S.

 

Cheers,

 

Craig

[cfimages]

I always forget something :-)

 

Without a doubt, someone is going to ask "what type of stuff do you shoot?"

 

Well, just click on my name and look at my p.net portfolio. There's about 170 images, so you should get a good idea of what i shoot.

[fernando lopez]

Craig: Go for option 1! The 17-40 is a marvellous lens and with the 50 and the 70-200 you'll be covered from 17 to 200 mm (assume it's no problem to have the 10 mm gap between 50 and 60). I have both the 17-40 and the 50 1.8 and am now selling my 100 f/2 to finance the 70-200. The 70-200 is said to be very good! I'do defintely go for option 1 and maybe in the future add the 300 f/4 the 400 f/5.6 or the 100-400.

[fernando lopez]

Nice portfolio you have there. Looking at it, you don't seem to shoot any wildlife or serious sport. I think with the 17-40 and the 70-200 later, you'll be ready for almost any situation. Good luck!

[cfimages]

Leon, thanks for the advice and for taking the time to look at my images.

[palfy]

I have all three lenses of option #1 -- you cannot go wrong with any of them!

 

However, I'd like to throw out another possibility. Since you have the 28-135 IS USM, you might have got used to shooting handheld with IS. Unfortunately, the 70-200L/f4 has no IS (and Canon certainly knows why they do not introduce one). If you need IS, go for the 70-300 DO IS, if you can afford it. I have both the 70-300DO and the 70-200L/f4. These days, I take approx. 85% of my shots with the 70-300DO. The 70-200L/f4 will only get used on a tripod, otherwise I do not even carry it any longer, since the 70-300DO delivers comparable or sometimes better results, IF (and that's a big IF for some) you know how to use it. It's twice as expensive as the 70-200, but worth every penny, if you want/need IS. Plus, it's light and it's black.

 

If IS does not matter to you, then get the 70-200L/f4.

[uzi]

I have the 17-40/4L, 50/1.4 and 70-200/4L triumverate... I'm happy with all three lenses. I guess my only complaint is that they're all different filter sizes (77mm, 58mm and 67mm respectively). And as a final kick in the shins, the 28-135 IS (which my wife has) also has a different filter size of 72mm.

[cfimages]

P Palfy,

 

IS is not that important, as for the long stuff, I ususally use a tripod. And I rarely shoot at longer than 200mm, so the extra cost of the DO IS lens is not really worth it to me.

 

Joshua,

 

I generally don't use filters. Maybe a polarising filter if the situation warrents it, and I have a 58mm CPL, and a 77mmCPL (my Tokina 20-35mm has a 77mm thread - I use a step up ring when I using it on the 28-135mm).

 

Thanks both of you for your suggestions.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>I don't want to lock myself into EF-S. </i> </p>

<p> You have a 20D. It is a likely to assume that all it's predecessors will also be EF-S. So, if you do not plan to upgrade to a 1 series, it does not matter if you buy an EF-S lens or another digital only lens like the Tokina 12-24 or Tamron 11-18. In both cases you will not be able to use any of them on a body with a bigger sensor and in both cases you will be able to use any of them on any future EOS body. </p>

 

<p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/wideangle-dslr.html">http://www.photo.net/equipment/wideangle-dslr.html</a> <b></b> </p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>